Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) - PETITION TO LIST THE - WildEarth Guardians
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PETITION TO LIST THE
Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus)
UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Photo: NOAA
Petition Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Acting through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service
Petitioner:
WildEarth Guardians
1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 301
Denver, Colorado 80202
303.573.4898
December 18, 2012
INTRODUCTION WildEarth Guardians hereby formally petitions the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),1 an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to list the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) as “threatened” or “endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). We request that NMFS list the species throughout its range; however, in the alternative, if NMFS finds that there are Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of whale sharks, we would request that those be listed under the ESA. Additionally, we request that NMFS designate critical habitat for the species in U.S. waters or areas of the high seas that are essential to the species’ survival and recovery. The whale shark is the largest living species of fish. It is found across the globe in tropical and warm temperate oceans. Much of the whale shark’s life history is either unknown or poorly understood. However, the species is known to migrate long distances, which may partially account for its global range. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the whale shark as “vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List.2 IUCN defines a species as “vulnerable” if the best available evidence indicates that it is “considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.”3 Since the IUCN is made up of reasonable scientists and individuals, and makes its decisions based upon the best available science, its determination that the whale shark is facing a high risk of extinction should convince a reasonable person that the species may also deserve listing as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. The United States acknowledged the need to protect the whale shark when it proposed to list the species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2000.4 Therefore, a determination on this Petition that the whale shark may not warrant protection would be inconsistent with past positions of the U.S., as expressed through CITES, and the best available science as compiled by the IUCN. The whale shark faces four main threats. First, it has been experiencing, and likely will continue to experience, habitat destruction caused by pollution, climate change and resultant damage to coral reefs, and oil and gas development and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, it has been, and continues to be, targeted for exploitation in commercial fishing operations in several areas around the globe, particularly in Asia. Additionally, many whale sharks are incidentally killed as bycatch, and tourism based on diving with whale sharks often disrupts the sharks’ normal activities. Third, whale sharks are threatened by the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to protect them from overexploitation. Finally, other manmade and natural factors make the whale shark more vulnerable to exploitation and thus susceptible to precipitous population declines. These factors include: high value in international trade, susceptibility to fishing, slow rate of maturation, highly migratory nature, large seasonal congregations, and the low abundance of the species. 1 NOAA Fisheries Service 2 IUCN 2005 at 3-5. 3 IUCN 2001 at 13, 20-22. 4 CITES 2000, entire. Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 1
PETITIONERS
WildEarth Guardians is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization that works to protect
endangered and threatened species throughout the world. The organization has more than 5,000
members and over 18,000 supporters throughout the United States and in several foreign
countries. It is currently focusing on marine species, including the whale shark, as part of its
Wild Oceans campaign.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The ESA was enacted to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.”5 Under Section 3 of the ESA,
the term “species” is defined as including “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.”6 The ESA defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range . . . ”7 A “threatened species” is
“any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”8
CRITERIA FOR LISTING
Section 4 of the ESA sets forth five listing factors under which a species can qualify for listing as
“threatened” or “endangered”:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.9
A species need only meet one of these criteria to qualify for listing as “threatened” or
“endangered.”10 A species is determined to be threatened or endangered “solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available…”11 Accordingly, the Secretary cannot refuse
to make a listing decision even if some aspects of the species’ life history are not fully
5
16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) (2011).
6
Id. § 1532(16).
7
Id. § 1532(6).
8
Id. § 1532(20).
9
Id.
10
Id. § 1533(a)(1).
11
Id. § 1533(b)(1)(A).
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 2
understood at the time of determination. The agency must rely on the best available scientific
data; it cannot deny a species ESA protection because it wishes to have more scientific data.12
CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE
Taxonomy. The petitioned species is Rhincodon typus. The full taxonomic classification is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Taxonomy of Rhincodon typus. Source: ITIS undated at 1.
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Class Chondrichthyes
Subclass Elasmobranchii
Superorder Euselachii
Order Orectolobiformes
Family Rhincodontidae
Genus Rhincodon
Species typus
Common Name. Rhincodon typus is known by the common names “dámero” and “tiburón
ballena” in Spanish, “requin baleine” in French, and “whale shark” in English.13 Throughout this
Petition the species will be referred to as “whale shark.”
SPECIES DESCRIPTION
The whale shark is the largest living fish in the world. As there have been relatively few studies
of whale sharks, their maximum size is uncertain. However, visual accounts and tagging studies
have reported whale sharks between 17 and 18 meters (55-59 feet) in length.14 The most
commonly accepted maximum length is around 13.7 meters (45 feet).15
Distinguishing Characteristics. The whale shark is one of only three large filter-feeding
species of shark, along with the megamouth (Megachasma pelagios) and basking shark
(Cetorhinus maximus).16 It has “a broad, flat head and truncated snout” with filter screens and
numerous small teeth on its internal gill slits.17 Whale sharks are known to have a large first
dorsal fin, small second dorsal fin, and typically large pectoral fins.18 Whale sharks are further
distinguishable because their mouths are near the tip of the snout and close to the eyes.19 The
12
Id.
13
ITIS undated at 1.
14
See Compagno 2002 at 206.
15
Id.
16
Id. at 203.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
NOAA undated 1 at 1.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 3
species is known for its bluish-green color and unique checkerboard pattern of white or yellow
spots and horizontal and vertical stripes (Figure 1).20
Figure 1. The whale shark’s distinctive checkerboard and spotted pattern.
Photo: NOAA.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
“Whale sharks are found in all tropical and warm temperate seas except the Mediterranean.”21
Their range is typically between 30°N and 35°S latitude, though they have been seen as high as
41°N and 36.5°S.22 Whale sharks are known to inhabit both deep and shallow coastal waters,
and lagoons and coral reefs.23 In the Atlantic Ocean, whale sharks are found as far north as the
waters just below Nova Scotia in Canada, and as far south as central Brazil and South Africa.24
This broad range means that whale sharks are found throughout the Caribbean, the Gulf of
Mexico, and along the East Coast of the United States.25 In the Pacific, they are found as far
north as Japan and as far south as Southern Australia. The whale shark also ranges throughout
the Indian Ocean, from South Africa to India and Western Australia (Figure 2).26
20
Compagno 2002 at 203.
21
IUCN 2005 at 4.
22
Id.
23
Compagno 2002 at 204.
24
Id. at 203-04.
25
Id.
26
Id.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 4
Figure 2. Global range of whale sharks.
Source: Compagno 2002 at 204.
While the whale shark has a relatively large range, it is rare throughout most of it. Rather than
being found throughout the range at any one time, the whale shark is highly migratory. There
are records of whale sharks migrating as far as 13,000 kilometers (km), or over 7,000 miles, from
the Gulf of California, Mexico to near Tonga, in just over 37 months.27 As a result of the
migratory nature of the species, in several parts of the range the whale shark is unlikely to be
present at any given time. However, there are several areas where whale sharks seem to be more
concentrated. For instance, whale sharks appear to be present year-round in some areas like
Taiwan, Honduras, and the Seychelles.28 Additionally, there are consistent sightings in some
areas during particular months of the year. These areas include: Australia, Belize, Chile, India,
Mexico, the Philippines, and Tanzania.29 In some areas there are also large seasonal
congregations of whale sharks, presumably for feeding or breeding purposes. One such
gathering, off of Isla Mujeres in the Yucatan, was documented as containing at least 420
individuals (Figure 3).30
27
Eckert & Stewart 2001 at 303.
28
IUCN 2005 at 4-5.
29
Id.
30
Dell'Amore 2011 at 2.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 5
Figure 3. Gathering of whale sharks off of Isla Mujeres in the Yucatan.
Photo: Smithsonian Institute.
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Typically, whale sharks inhabit both deep ocean waters and more shallow coastal waters. Ocean
temperature within the tropical or temperate ranges appears to be the primary habitat indicator.
However, some studies have shown that whale sharks gather seasonally in certain areas and that
“shallow waters near the mouths of some rivers and estuaries could constitute feeding or
breeding/birthing grounds.”31 The U.S. proposal to list the whale shark under Appendix II of
CITES stated; “[v]irtually nothing is known about what may make these areas important to the
whale sharks, i.e., nature of utilization, water quality, concentrations of plankton, temperature
range, current patterns, weather, or sea state.”32 Whale shark habitat requirements need further
analysis. However, such studies are unnecessary for purposes of ESA listing because the
determination is based only upon the best available data.
LIFE HISTORY
There is a significant amount of scientific uncertainty regarding the age potential of whale
sharks. One study estimates that whale sharks may live as long as 100 years.33 A more
conservative estimate places whale shark longevity at around 60 years.34 While it is
acknowledged that whale sharks are long-lived, it is clear that more studies are needed to
determine how long-lived.
31
CITES 2000 at 1-2.
32
Id. at 2.
33
Compagno 2002 at 206.
34
See Martins & Knickle undated at 6.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 6
Reproduction. The whale shark is ovoviviparous, meaning that embryos develop inside eggs
which female sharks carry until giving live birth.35 The gestation period for whale sharks is
unknown, but it has been hypothesized that they reproduce every other year.36 There is very
little information about whale shark litter sizes apart from one report where a female whale shark
was found carrying around 300 embryos in varying states of maturity.37 Several were fully
mature and about to be born.38
Even assuming that litter sizes are around 300, large litter size is probably an indication of the
relatively low rate of survival for newborn whale sharks. Newborn whale sharks are not only too
small to fend off most predators, but they are also too large to go unnoticed by them. Other
sharks and orcas are known to attack smaller whale sharks, and the remains of small whale
sharks have been found in both a blue marlin and a blue shark.39
Available information suggests that certain places, including near Taiwan, may serve as birthing
areas for whale sharks.40 This is where scientists found the female whale shark that was carrying
around 300 embryos.41 Based on information obtained from this litter and other studies,
newborn whale sharks are estimated to measure between 58 and 64 centimeters (~2 feet) (Figure
4).42 Whale sharks likely do not reach sexual maturity until 21 years of age.43 Such a long time
between birth and sexual maturity could possibly explain the relative rarity of the species, as it
may be uncommon for individuals to reach sexual maturity.
Figure 4. Newborn whale shark in the Philippines.
Photo: World Wildlife Fund.
35
Compagno 2002 at 205.
36
Id.
37
See Joung et al. 1996 at 220.
38
Id.
39
IUCN 2005 at 6.
40
Martins & Knickle undated at 7.
41
Joung et al.1996 at 220.
42
Id.
43
IUCN 2005 at 6.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 7Diet. The whale shark is a filter-feeder, and feeds on a wide variety of plankton and nektonic
organisms.44 Due to this food preference, whale sharks have been known to migrate to areas as
the amount of plankton and small organisms increase.45 In addition to plankton, observers have
also reported whale sharks consuming small crustaceans, squid, and some fish such as sardines,
anchovies, mackerel, and even small tunas and albacore.46 The other two filter-feeding sharks,
the megamouth (Megachasma pelagios) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), require
forward motion to filter water and ingest food.47 The whale shark, in contrast, “is able to hang
vertically in the water and suction feed by closing its gill slits and opening its mouth”48 (Figure
5).
Figure 5. Whale shark feeding.
Photo: Florida Museum of Natural History.
ECOLOGICAL ROLE
Relatively little is known about the whale shark’s role in the oceanic ecosystem when compared
with other large ocean animals like whales and other shark species. However, as the U.S. CITES
proposal stated, “[a]s the world’s largest fish and a planktivore, the whale shark can be assumed
to play a significant role in the structure and dynamics of the nearshore and estuarine ecosystems
that it frequents.”49
HISTORIC AND CURRENT POPULATION STATUS AND TRENDS
There are no current estimates as to the population of whale sharks. However, scientists agree
that the species has a relatively low abundance.50 While it is entirely possible that there are
subpopulations of whale sharks within each ocean or region, the relative scarcity of information
44
Compagno 2002 at 205.
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
IUCN 2005 at 6.
48
Id.
49
CITES 2000 at 2-3.
50
Compagno 2002 at 208.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 8on the species and its highly migratory nature make it difficult to know for sure whether such
subpopulations exist. Despite a shortage of data regarding population numbers, the IUCN lists
the whale shark as “vulnerable” because of its low abundance and the likelihood that its numbers
will continue to decline.51 The IUCN further lists the whale shark population as “currently
decreasing.”52 However, because of the lack of information regarding population numbers it is
difficult for IUCN to know if the species’ status should be changed from vulnerable to
endangered. The United States was obviously mindful of the vulnerability of the species when it
proposed its listing under Appendix II of CITES in 2000.53
The biggest reason for the global decline of the whale shark is commercial fishing. Whale
sharks are susceptible to being accidently caught in purse, drift, and gillnet fisheries.54 Aside
from these accidental catches, whale sharks are targeted, mainly using harpoons, and are
intentionally captured in purse seine nets by fishers targeting tuna and other smaller fish that
school under them. India, the Maldives, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Taiwan are among several
countries that either have harpooned in the recent past or continue to harpoon whale sharks.55
There are several reasons for the commercial exploitation of whale sharks. First, the price of
products from whale sharks has increased, making it more lucrative for fishers to target the
species.56 Second, whale sharks, like many other species of shark, are targeted for their fins, and,
because whale shark fins are so large, it can be especially lucrative for fin fishers to target whale
sharks. Third, fishers target whale sharks because the sharks’ tendency to spend much of their
time near the surface of the water makes them easy targets.57 Finally, whale sharks are targeted
commercially because they present an easy transition for former whale-hunters as most whale
species are now protected.58 It is easy for former whale-hunters to hunt whale sharks because it
involves almost identical processes.
IDENTIFIED THREATS TO THE PETITIONED SPECIES: CRITERIA FOR LISTING
The whale shark meets four of the criteria for listing identified under ESA Section 4 (in bold):
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range;
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
C. Disease or predation;
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.59
51
IUCN 2005 at 3-4.
52
Id. at 5.
53
CITES 2000, entire.
54
IUCN 2005 at 8.
55
Id. at 7.
56
CITES 2000 at 2, 3.
57
Compagno 2002 at 208.
58
Id.
59
16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1).
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 9First, growing human populations, anthropogenic climate change, and oil and gas development and consequent oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico are currently destroying whale shark habitat, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Second, commercial fishing poses the largest threat to the species, though recreation also poses threats. Third, the current regulatory mechanisms in individual countries, under Appendix II of CITES, and in the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) purse seine ban are inadequate to protect whale sharks, primarily because of either lax standards, limited geographical scope, or lack of enforcement. Finally, several other natural and manmade factors are contributing to the decline of the species. These other factors include: slow growth rates, delayed sexual maturity, small abundance, the relative ease of hunting whale sharks, and the synergistic effects of multiple threats. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range (Criterion A) Growing Human Populations. Human populations have a substantial negative effect on shark habitat, particularly human populations located near the coasts. “Contemporary sharks occur mostly where human population density is low.”60 As coastal human populations grow, the negative effects on whale shark habitat will increase. Worldwide, approximately 2.5 billion people live within 100 km of the coastline.61 However, by 2020 an astonishing 75% of the expanding human population is expected to live within just 60 km of the coastline.62 The negative impacts of this trend are exacerbated by the fact that impacts from this population growth do not occur linearly. Increased economic growth in coastal cities is a major cause of ocean habitat destruction. With growth comes an increase in consumption and development. This is reflected in an increase in construction projects, some of which occur on reef communities; dredging of harbors and shipping channels; dumping of waste, run-off pollution and increased sedimentation; deforestation; and increased tourism. Research indicates that sharks around populated coastal areas are both smaller and less numerous, and that human population is also negatively correlated with the total number of fish present.63 The coasts around virtually all urban areas are “beset by a pattern of pollution and over-development.”64 “Coastal urban areas dump increasing loads of toxic wastes into the sea. In fact, waters around many coastal cities have turned into virtual cesspools, so thick with pollution that virtually no marine life can survive.”65 This urban pollution is contributing to increasing “dead zones” – areas where dissolved oxygen content is so low that no marine life, apart from microorganisms, can live. A 2007 study identified 200 of these dead zones, an increase of 51 in just four years.66 These dead zones are not only becoming more numerous; they are expanding “due mainly to high nutrient pollution levels brought in by rivers and streams and washed off coastal land.”67 One striking example is 60 Ward-Paige et al. 2010 at 6. 61 Burke et al. 2011 at 21. 62 Knip et al. 2010 at 2 (citation omitted). 63 Griffin et al. 2008 at 2. 64 Hinrichsen Undated at 2. 65 Id. at 4. 66 Id. at 5. 67 Id. Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 10
the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, the world’s second largest, which has now reached the size of the state of New Jersey at 21,000 square kilometers.68 These human population-related dangers pose real threats to whale sharks, which rely on coastal areas and inhabit the Gulf of Mexico. Since whale sharks have been shown to gather in the “shallow waters near the mouths of some rivers and estuaries [that] could constitute feeding or breeding/birthing grounds,” dead zones, typically located at the mouths of rivers, pose a particular problem to whale sharks by impacting habitat essential to the species at pivotal life stages.69 Furthermore, climate change is expected to magnify these coastal pollution problems. For example, “[d]ue to water circulation and oceanic volume changes, estuarine and coastal systems are predicted to experience . . . increased eutrophication, hypoxia, and anoxia.”70 “More intense rains wash more fertilizer and sewage into coastal waters, and this runoff triggers algal blooms and consequent poisoning of fish and humans.”71 This will cause new dead zones to emerge and already-existing dead zones to expand in the mouths of rivers and estuaries – potentially in habitat that whale sharks rely on. Coral reefs have already been exhibiting significant levels of deterioration due to anthropogenic impacts, and scientists believe that upwards of 70% of tropical and semi-tropical coral reefs, areas very important to whale sharks, may be lost within the next 40 years.72 The Caribbean, an area with important whale shark habitat, has been particularly hard hit; four-fifths of their coral reefs disappeared by 2003 with no signs of improvement since then.73 This damage to important coral reef habitat is already having profound impacts on shark populations. A recent University of Miami study found that reef shark numbers around populated islands, those where anthropogenic effects would be strongest, had dropped by more than 90% compared to those at the most pristine reefs.74 The researchers found that “[t]he pattern – of very low reef shark numbers near inhabited islands – was remarkably consistent, irrespective of ocean conditions or region.”75 In short, as human population, including human population located near coasts and coral reefs, continues to increase, sharks, especially those that depend on fragile coastal ecosystems like the whale shark, will continue to lose habitat. This loss of habitat puts whale sharks at greater risk of extinction. Anthropogenic Climate Change. Climate change will not only effect whale shark habitat by exacerbating the effects of human-caused pollution, it will negatively impact whale shark habitat directly as well. “Global climate change is impacting and will likely increasingly impact marine and estuarine fish and fisheries.”76 “Extremes in environmental factors, such as elevated water temperature, low dissolved oxygen or salinity, and pH, [all impacts predicted with anthropogenic climate change,] can have deleterious effects on fishes.”77 As global climate change progresses, 68 Id. 69 See Id.; CITES 2000 at 1-2. 70 Roessig et al. 2004 at 258 (citations omitted). 71 Id. at 269 (citation omitted). 72 Hinrichsen undated at 2; Compagno 2002 at 204. 73 See Hinrichsen undated at 3; Compagno 2002 at 203-04. 74 Nadon 2012 at 1. 75 Id. at 2. 76 Roessig et al. 2004 at 269. 77 See Id. at 257 (citations omitted). Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 11
these environmental factors will continue to deteriorate, rendering more and more habitat
unsuitable for whale sharks.
Currently, the exact consequences of climate change for the oceans are not well understood, but
the “hypothesis that coral reef communities are among the first to show signs of adverse climate
change-related effects has been widely stated in the literature.”78 Coral reefs form important
whale shark habitat, and their continued destruction will have deleterious consequences for the
species.79 To begin with, “[c]orals are, quite obviously, central to coral reef ecosystems.”80 “To
date, the study of potential effects of global climate change and inter-annual variation on coral
reef communities have focused almost entirely on hermatypic (reef-building) corals, including
‘bleaching’ events.”81 “Coral bleaching occurs when the photosynthetic symbionts of corals
(zooxanthellae) become increasingly vulnerable to damage by light at higher than normal
temperatures. The resulting damage leads to the expulsion of these important organisms from the
coral host. Corals tend to die in great numbers immediately following coral bleaching events,
which may stretch across thousands of square kilometers of ocean.”82 These bleaching events
have been increasing both in terms of intensity and extent due to worldwide anthropogenic
climate increases and will continue to cause severe damage to coral reefs.83
However, coral bleaching caused directly by oceanic temperature increase is not the only threat
to coral reefs exacerbated by climate change. Certain coral diseases, harmful bacteria, and fungi
may also become more prevalent due to climate change and cause further damage to this
important whale shark habitat.
Three coral pathogens (Aspergillus sydowii, Vibrio shiloi, and Black Band
Disease) grow well at temperatures close to or exceeding probable host optima,
suggesting that their population sizes would increase in warmer waters. Certain
bacteria (e.g., V. shiloi) cause bleaching of certain coral species (e.g., Oculina
patagonica), while fungi grow optimally at temperatures that coincide with
thermal stress and bleaching in corals. This may lead to a co-occurrence of
bleaching and infection . . . [T]he leftover dead coral surfaces can become
colonized by macroalage, which support the proliferation of toxic
dinoflagellates.84
Mass blooms of such dinoflagellates can cause destructive effects including toxic red tides.85
Therefore, increased ocean temperatures mean a plethora of increased threats to corals, the reef
ecosystems that depend on them, and the sharks, including whale sharks, that depend on those
ecosystems.
“Ultimately the only clear solution to this threat will be a concerted and successful global effort
78
Id. at 263, 265 (citations omitted).
79
See Compagno 2002 at 204.
80
Hoegh-Guldberg 2006 at 3.
81
Roessig et al. 2004 at 263 (citations omitted).
82
Hoegh-Guldberg 2006 at Executive Summary.
83
Id.
84
Roessig et al. 2004 at 269 (internal citations omitted).
85
Latz Laboratory undated at 2.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 12to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions and to stabilize atmospheric concentrations [of
those gases] somewhere around or below current levels.”86 So far, the U.S. has not been part of
this solution. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges this shortcoming in its
“warranted but precluded” finding for the meltwater lednian stonefly, which is primarily
threatened by climate change:
The United States is only now beginning to address global climate change through
the regulatory process (e.g., Clean Air Act). We have no information on what
regulations may eventually be adopted, and when implemented, if they would
address the changes in meltwater lednian stonefly habitat that are likely to occur
in the foreseeable future. Consequently, we conclude that existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to address the threat of habitat loss and modification
resulting from the environmental changes due to climate change to the meltwater
lednian stonefly in the foreseeable future.87
With global temperatures already rising, no imminent solution to global climate change, and the
negative effects on whale shark habitat that the lack of such a solution allows, there is both
present and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of the whale shark’s habitat
and range due to climate change.
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Continued Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The
recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill has degraded the whale shark’s “critical” Gulf of Mexico
habitat, and continued oil exploration and drilling foretell a future threat of similar
catastrophes.88 As a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill, “[a] suite of pollutants – liquid and
gaseous petroleum compounds plus chemical dispersants – poured into ecosystems that had
already been stressed by overfishing, development and global climate change.”89 The timing and
location of the spill couldn’t have been worse; it occurred during “peak season for whale sharks
in the Gulf: May through September.” The spill occurred in the vicinity of as many as a third of
the area’s tracked specimens.90
With over 4.9 million barrels (205.8 million gallons) spilled from April 10, 2010 to July 15, 2010
when the well was capped,91 scientists believe the Deepwater Horizon spill has caused, and will
continue to cause, physical and behavioral changes, as well as displacement, in whale sharks.92
Whale sharks using this important habitat may experience a variety of long-term negative
effects; absorbing toxic dispersants used to remove oil; suffocating from oil-clogged gills; or
negative effects associated with ingesting contaminated prey.93 Scientists are studying the whale
shark for fatal and non-fatal impacts from the oil spill, including effects on fertility and the
86
Burke et al. 2011 at 31.
87
FWS 2011 at 18684, 18694.
88
Shark Diver 2010 at 1.
89
Peterson et al. 2011 at 3.
90
Shark Diver 2010 at 1; Handwerk 2010 at 2.
91
Hoch 2010 at 1; Welch 2010 at 1.
92
Handwerk 2010, entire.
93
Id. at 2-3.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 13immune system.94 With such impacts likely, it seems clear that the effects of the spill will
impact whale sharks and their habitat for years to come.
Unfortunately, the Deepwater Horizon spill is probably not as isolated an occurrence as
most would hope. In the wake of this disaster, the U.S. has continued to lease vast swathes
of the Gulf for oil drilling, even going so far as to sell literally hundreds of new leases for
drilling before the Deepwater Horizon spill had even been capped.95 The omnipresent
drilling activity in this area makes it very likely that there will be more spills in the future,
and some may even be as, or more, catastrophic than the Deepwater Horizon spill. The
Deepwater Horizon spill has caused destruction and modification of the whale shark’s Gulf
of Mexico habitat. Any future spills would clearly further degrade this habitat (or any other
areas of whale shark habitat where they may occur for that matter), and the high probability
that such a spill will occur adds an additional threat of destruction to this crucial whale
shark habitat.
Combined Threats to Gulf of Mexico Whale Shark Habitat. A number of the threats
mentioned above have converged on a specific area of critical whale shark habitat in the
Gulf of Mexico. The enormous Gulf of Mexico dead zone has made a large swath of the
Gulf uninhabitable for the species. Climate change and resulting increased rain in the
Mississippi River basin will likely lead to increased pollution and expansion of the dead
zone – combined with an increasing human population in the basin, this threat is likely to be
even more severe than it would be due to climate change effects alone. Lastly, continued
oil and gas development threaten this already stressed system even further.
As noted above, dead zones throughout the world are expanding “due mainly to high
nutrient pollution levels brought in by rivers and streams and washed off coastal land.”96
Of particular relevance to the whale shark is the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, which has
become the second largest in the world at an incredible 21,000 square kilometers,97 the size
of the entire state of New Jersey.98 This dead zone starts at the mouth of the Mississippi
River and extends westward to the upper Texas coast.99 The main causes of the dead zone –
increased fertilizer runoff from agriculture (especially corn) and increased sewage from
growing populations in the Mississippi River basin – show no signs of abatement and the
nutrients responsible for these dead zones are increasing in the Mississippi River.100
Climate change will serve to increase the dead zone’s expansion rate as increased rains
wash more fertilizer and sewage into the Gulf, triggering the algae blooms that cause these
severely oxygen-deficient areas to develop.101 To make matters worse, “[t]he [Gulf of
Mexico] dead zone appears to be reaching a ‘tipping point’ where the system is becoming
increasingly sensitive to nutrient inputs… and climate change exacerbates the problem as it
94
Hueter and Gelsleichter 2010 at 11.
95
See, e.g., Sheppard 2010 at 1.
96
Hinrichsen undated at 5.
97
Id.
98
Id.
99
Bruckner Undated at 1.
100
See Times-Picayune 2012, entire.
101
See Roessig et al. 2004 at 269 (citation omitted).
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 14warms water and increases intense storms.”102 With no solution to climate change evident
in the near future, the present levels of farming and sewage from populations in the
Mississippi River basin will likely cause an increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico dead
zone even if they remain constant. Their impact will, however, likely be even more severe
as fertilizer use and sewage both increase.
As described in detail above, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and continued oil and gas
drilling and exploration pose an ongoing threat to Gulf of Mexico whale shark habitat. The
Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred in an area characterized by scientists as “critical” Gulf
of Mexico whale shark habitat, and impacted as many as a third of the tracked whale shark
specimens in the Gulf.103 Despite the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, the U.S. has
continued to lease vast swathes of the Gulf for oil drilling.104 In 1979, the Ixtoc I spill
occurred leaking between 10,000 and 30,000 barrels of oil per day for nearly 10 months:105
Deepwater Horizon was not the first massive oil spill to happen in the Gulf of Mexico, and
it will likely not be the last. As long as the Gulf of Mexico is exploited for its oil reserves
there is an obvious, credible, and ongoing threat that another oil spill will happen and that
more whale shark habitat will be destroyed as a consequence. Continued habitat destruction
in the Gulf of Mexico is severe, ongoing, and imminent due to these multiple, intersecting
threats.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
(Criterion B)
Commercial Fishing. The bulk of whale shark overutilization is the result of commercial
fishing (Figure 6). The United States acknowledged the threat of commercial fishing with regard
to whale sharks when it proposed inclusion of the whale shark in Appendix II of CITES.106 The
most recent commercial fishing figures for whale sharks indicate that fishing for the species is
common in several countries. Indian fishers landed about 1,000 whale sharks in 1999, most of
which were exported to Taiwan, Malaysia and other Asian countries.107 The whale shark is
heavily fished in Taiwan where the demand for whale shark meat (called “tofu shark” because of
its texture) is high.108 High demand has resulted in increasing prices, which in turn results in
additional fishing.109
Not only is the whale shark targeted by commercial fishing, it also suffers from bycatch from gill
nets, purse seine nets, and fish traps set by fishers targeting other fish.110 As a result of both
incidental and purposeful fishing, the whale shark population has declined. For example, in
Taiwan, between 250 and 272 whale sharks were caught in 1995.111 However, a mere six years
102
Times-Picayune 2012 at 6.
103
Shark Diver 2010 at 1; Handwerk 2010 at 2.
104
See, e.g., Sheppard 2010 at 1.
105
NOAA undated 3 at 1.
106
CITES 2000 at 3, 4.
107
Id. at 4.
108
IUCN 2005 at 7.
109
See CITES 2000 at 2, 3.
110
Compagno 2002 at 207.
111
IUCN 2005 at 7.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 15later, in 2001, only 89 whale sharks were caught in Taiwan.112 This represents a decrease of
between 60% and 70%, despite the increase in Taiwanese demand and thus likely fishing
pressure.113 These figures suggest that fewer whale sharks are found in this area. Such scarcity
in this area is particularly significant because this is the same place thought by scientists to be a
relatively large birthing area.114 If the whale sharks being caught in this area are pregnant
females, the loss of even one could significantly impact the ability of the species to maintain its
already small and dwindling population.
Figure 6. A whale shark being butchered.
Photo: © World Entertainment News Network.
Taiwan is not the only country to experience whale shark scarcity. For example, in the
Philippines, despite increased fishing efforts, there was a 29% decrease in whale sharks caught in
1997.115 Ultimately, this observed decrease led the Philippines to institute a fishing ban on the
species.116 However, because of the high values of whale shark flesh and fins and the decline in
whaling, the fear is that “whale sharks could be targeted in international waters by long-range
fishing vessels run like miniature whale factory ships and using small ‘killer’ boats, harpoon-
guns, light helicopters or microlight aeroplanes as spotters, and even remote sensing from
satellites to fish these sharks.”117 Countries such as Pakistan use whale shark liver oil to treat
boats, representing yet another targeted fishing pressure on the species.118
In what is essentially a hybrid of the targeted fishery and bycatch fishery, the tuna purse seine net
fishery also captures large numbers of whale sharks both intentionally and unintentionally, often
with fatal consequences. Purse seine net fishing involves setting a large net around a large fish
112
Id.
113
Id.
114
Martins & Knickle undated at 7.
115
Id.
116
Id.
117
Compagno 2002 at 208.
118
See IUCN 2005 at 7.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 16or mammal in order to catch the smaller fish that gather underneath them.119 This practice has
been used extensively to capture tuna that school under whale sharks and led to the reported
deaths of at least 50 whale sharks in 2010 and 19 in 2011 alone.120 Even this large number is
almost certainly lower than the actual total number of immediate fatalities because “there were
likely many other cases that went unreported.”121 Immediate fatalities are not the only dangers
associated with purse seine net fishing. In other species subject to purse seine net fishing, this
practice causes capture myopathy.122 The captured animals experience acute, intense stress
during the fishing event.123 Studies indicate that this stress may lead to “long-term sequelae such
as vascular and muscle lesions, reproductive failure, or reduced survival.”124 The effects of
permanent injuries, reproductive failure, and reduced survival on a K-selected125 species like the
whale shark are obvious and unacceptable, yet purse seine net fishing continues. Though there
have been some recent inroads made (see “The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
(Criterion D)”), those changes are not sufficient in terms of geographic scale, enforcement, or
parties involved to fully stop this threat to whale sharks.
Human population growth will only intensify the threat of fishing. Demand for the “tofu shark”
has already grown, as evidenced by increasing prices, which in turn result in additional
fishing.126 The United Nations Population Division predicts an increase of over 3 billion people
worldwide by 2100, raising the total human population to over 10 billion people.127 If left
unchecked, this population growth will further increase fishing pressure on whale sharks.
Recreational Fishing. Whale sharks are also subject to overutilization for recreational purposes.
Divers are increasingly traveling to various locations throughout the world to dive with whale
sharks.128 As the U.S. proposal to list whale sharks under CITES in 2000 stated: “Tourist
industries based on seasonal occurrences of migratory whale sharks now exist in Thailand,
Australia, South Africa, Seychelles, Mozambique, Honduras and the Maldives and are likely to
appear in yet other areas.”129 These tourist industries include whale shark watching, but also
often entail diving with the whale sharks (Figure 7). The species is particularly desirable for
such diving-based tourism because it “is generally considered harmless despite its size, and
moderate-sized to very large individuals have been repeatedly approached closely by divers and
have been touched, ridden and otherwise contacted by them without the sharks reacting
aggressively.”130 Such utilization may at first appear harmless to the sharks, but the constant
pressure put on individual sharks by divers may result in continual harassment, which could
119
AFP 2012 at 2.
120
Id.
121
Id.
122
See generally Edwards 2007.
123
Id. at 224.
124
Id.
125
The whale shark is a K-selected species because it is a large, long-lived species that reproduces infrequently and
experiences a long delay in reaching sexual maturity. Such a life history pattern makes it more vulnerable to
extinction when the species loses individual members. This is explained more fully in “Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting its Continued Existence (Criterion E): Reproduction and maturity,” below).
126
See CITES 2000 at 2, 3.
127
United Nations Population Division 2011 at 1.
128
Id. at 207.
129
CITES 2000 at 3.
130
Compagno 2002 at 207.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 17easily disrupt the normal life cycles of the species and drive whale sharks away from aggregation
sites.131 Since little is known about why these aggregation sites are important to whale sharks,
there could be unexpected negative impacts to whale shark feeding, mating, birthing, or other
crucial events that could have dramatic negative effects on the species.
Figure 7. Diver with whale shark.
Photo: Oceana.org © 2010 Tony Rath.
Ecotourism involving whale sharks has become a significant moneymaker for the relevant
countries. For example, diving with whale sharks was determined to be worth between $3-5
million in Seychelles in 1996.132 Even more impressive is that between 1993 and 2002, the
number of people swimming with whale sharks in Western Australia grew from 1,000 to 5,000,
resulting in an annual estimated income of $12.8 million as of 2000.133 The profits realized by
these countries mean that diving with whale sharks is bound to expand both in terms of scale and
location if the species is not adequately protected.
Congress set forth a definition of what constitutes harassment of marine mammals in the MMPA;
it stated that harassment is, “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which… has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering.”134 Because the whale shark is a fish and not a mammal it is not protected
by the MMPA, despite the fact that its behavior closely resembles that of large whales.
Some countries and dive operations attempt to minimize harassment of whale sharks by setting
clear guidelines for divers, such as not touching the sharks.135 However, the increasing number
of diving tourists will result in increases in the harassment and pressure the whale sharks
currently experience, particularly in the many areas where such tourist activities have become
popular and the areas where dive operators have opted not to create whale shark interaction
guidelines. Furthermore, such voluntary approaches do not offer suitable protection to whale
131
Id.; Martins & Knickle undated at 5.
132
IUCN 2005 at 8.
133
See Id.; Compagno 2002 at 208.
134
16 U.S.C. § 1362(18)(A).
135
See DOEC undated, entire.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 18sharks and are inappropriate for a species facing serious pressures to its continued existence.
They are not regulatory measures and have no force of law.
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Criterion D)
A few countries have promulgated regulatory measures to protect whale sharks; however, such
measures are often ineffective or lack enforcement. For example, the Philippines banned fishing
of whale sharks in 1998, yet illegal fishing still takes place and the associated products are
exported to countries where demand exists.136 Furthermore, the United States made its position
known when it proposed that the whale shark be added to CITES Appendix II in 2000.137
Though this proposal was ultimately not approved by CITES (the whale shark was instead added
to Appendix II of CITES after a 2003 joint proposal made by Philippines and India), this action
shows that the U.S. is well aware of the perilous situation of whale shark and the need for
additional regulation.138 However, CITES listing itself offers insufficient protection as it simply
requires that exporting countries demonstrate that the exported whale shark carcasses came from
sustainable populations.139 This is problematic because there is currently no clear standard for
so-called “non-detriment findings” used to determine whether killings of covered species would
threaten sustainable populations.140 Even if there were some way to determine what a
sustainable population means, it would be difficult to demonstrate a sustainable whale shark
population because of the elusive and migratory nature of the species.141
There is relatively little that can be done to enforce CITES’ requirements, particularly when
there is an illegal market for whale sharks. Part of the problem is that Appendix II only requires
a permit for exports of species listed therein. Therefore, it does not require a country like
Taiwan to demonstrate that domestically consumed whale sharks came from sustainable
populations.142 Furthermore, the fact that only an export permit, and not an import permit, is
required for international trade means one less level of scrutiny.143 Thus, fishers from one
country could harpoon whale sharks in international waters and take them directly to any
importing country. If they were to do so without returning to their country of origin they would
completely avoid any permitting procedure under Appendix II of CITES. Additionally, CITES,
while very inclusive, does not cover every nation, and, even if it did, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan,
Norway, and South Korea all made reservations as to the whale shark’s inclusion in Appendix
II.144 Therefore, the protections offered by CITES in this case are not universal, thus further
undercutting the effectiveness of the measures taken. The ease of circumventing CITES
demonstrates the inadequacy of this listing for protecting whale sharks. NMFS acknowledged
the unsatisfactory effect of even the more restrictive Appendix I listings in its determination for
the listing of the largetooth sawfish under the ESA, when it stated that illegal foreign trade of the
136
IUCN 2005 at 7.
137
CITES 2000, entire.
138
IUCN 2005 at 9.
139
Id.
140
CITES undated 2 at 1.
141
IUCN 2005 at 4-5.
142
CITES undated 1 at 1-2.
143
Id.
144
See CITES undated 3, entire; CITES 2003 at 1.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 19species continued “in spite of the CITES listing and national laws, due to lack of
enforcement.”145
Only a handful of the 100 or more countries where the whale shark is found have listed the
species as protected.146 These countries include Australia, Honduras, the Maldives, and the
Philippines.147 However, the migration of whale sharks makes these regulations ineffective
because they cannot be enforced once the whale sharks leave protected waters. The U.S. has
also instituted some protection for the whale shark in the form of the Consolidated HMS Fishery
Management Plan. Under this plan, whale sharks are prohibited from being fished in U.S. waters
in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico.148 Yet this regulation does
nothing to protect the species in U.S waters in the Pacific Ocean or in other areas of the world
and does not address unintentional catches. Whale sharks are also not protected from harassment
that may interrupt important life cycle events in U.S. waters since they receive no protection
from the MMPA.149 If the U.S. deems it necessary to regulate a portion of the species, it should
regulate the entire species. This is especially true of highly migratory species like the whale
shark that may face population-level threats from fishing in seemingly unrelated areas.
Therefore, the United States should commit to protecting the whale shark under the ESA in all
U.S. waters that it inhabits.
The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission (WCPFC), which includes the United States, recently agreed to stop setting purse
seine nets around whale sharks in the western and central Pacific.150 However, this limited
protection is not effective. This is because it only binds a limited number of countries (those that
are parties to the agreement); it only applies in the limited area of the PNA’s waters and does not
control setting purse seine nets around whale sharks in other areas; it does not cover whale
sharks that are unintentionally caught in purse seine nets; and it is unclear whether there will be
sufficient enforcement to stop even intentional captures.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence (Criterion E)
Several other factors, both natural and manmade, contribute to the declining population and
endangerment of whale sharks. These factors include aspects of whale shark behavior that make
them exceptionally susceptible to fishing; the late reproduction, maturity, and longevity issues
associated with the species; and the synergistic effects of multiple threats to whale shark
existence.
Susceptibility to Fishing. Whale sharks are relatively rare. If a species is rare to begin with,
every individual taken out of the population drives the species that much closer to extinction.
Taking 1,000 individual whale sharks in a given year from a single area, as was done recently in
145
NOAA 2011b at 40822, 40832; NOAA undated 2 at 3.
146
CITES 2000 at 4.
147
Id.
148
NOAA 2011ax at 2-3.
149
See “Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes (Criterion B):
Recreational Overutilization” above.
150
AFP 2012 at 1-2.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 20India, can cripple the population.151 The size of whale sharks and their tendency to remain near
the ocean’s surface both contribute to their overexploitation.152 Since they are the largest fish in
the ocean, it is inherently easier to spot whale sharks than other fish. Moreover, whale sharks
habitually stay near the surface of the ocean as they feed or bask in the warmer surface waters.153
This combination of factors increases whale shark visibility and makes it much easier for fishers
to harpoon whale sharks than many other species. Lastly, whale sharks predictably gather in
certain areas, whether for breeding or feeding.154 Such congregations have been observed
containing up to 420 individuals.155 A large, predictable gathering of whale sharks makes it
much easier for the species to be overfished in those areas and, as a highly migratory species,
overfishing in one area will not have merely local results.
Reproduction, Maturity, and Longevity. Whale sharks are also vulnerable to extinction in part
because they are a K-selected or K-strategy species (they are a large, long-lived species that
reproduces infrequently and experiences a long delay in reaching sexual maturity).156
K-strategy species are more extinction prone than are r-strategy species. The very
efficiency with which K-strategy species exploit their environment is a liability
during periods of rapid or chaotic change. The larger body size of individuals of
a K-strategy species – while giving an advantage in interspecific competition and
in defense against predators and allowing individuals to exploit a larger area –
means that there are fewer individuals… At the same time, lower reproduction
rates make it more difficult both for the species to recover if its population
becomes depressed and for it to adapt to a changed environment because fewer
offspring contain less genetic variability. Thus, the very “fittedness” of K-
strategy species to a particular environment – which is advantageous during
periods of stability – becomes a serious handicap when the habitat changes more
rapidly than genes can be substituted in a population – and in species that
reproduce slowly, genes are substituted slowly.157
Whale sharks are currently experiencing the type of rapid, chaotic change that makes their K-
selected life history pattern a liability. This is because whale sharks are not only losing habitat,
but also being fished and removed from their remaining habitat at a rate greater than they can
replenish their numbers.158 As a result of these pressures, many of the whale shark’s physical
attributes and reproductive adaptations have gone from being beneficial to creating increased risk
of species extinction. For instance, whale shark recruitment is hindered by the fact that they are
large, live longer than most shark species, reach sexual maturation late in life, and reproduce
infrequently.159 This type of life history pattern means that the species does not replenish itself
151
See CITES 2000 at 2, 3, 4.
152
Compagno 2002 at 208.
153
Id. at 207.
154
Id. at 206.
155
Dell'Amore 2011 at 2.
156
See Goble & Freyfogle 2010 at 1058-60; Compagno 2002 at 206; IUCN 2005 at 6.
157
Goble & Freyfogle 2010 at 1059-60 (emphasis in original).
158
See “The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range (Criterion A)”
above; “Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes (Criterion B)” above.
159
See Compagno 2002 at 206; IUCN 2005 at 6.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 21as quickly as smaller, shorter-lived, r-selected species and is, therefore, more vulnerable when
individuals are removed from the population or species reproduction is otherwise disrupted. This
difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that the largest whale sharks are both the whale sharks most
commonly targeted by fishers for the greatest economic return and those most likely to be
sexually mature. The whale shark’s age at sexual maturity (estimated to be 21 years) makes it
impossible for younger whale sharks to replace larger individuals because they are not yet
sexually mature, thus making it very difficult for the population to replenish itself.160 This is
made even more problematic as reproductive individuals that have been removed by fishers may
never be replaced at all, since many juvenile whale sharks will never reach sexual maturity due
to their susceptibility to predation by other sharks, orcas, and predatory fish species.161
Removing the only members of a species that are capable of reproduction means there is a
substantial risk that the population will rapidly collapse.
Synergistic Effects. The synergistic effects of aforementioned threats could conspire to cause
the extinction of whale sharks. “Like interactions within species assemblages, synergies among
stressors form self-reinforcing mechanisms that hasten the dynamics of extinction.”162
The combination of threats to the whale shark and its habitat could cause a greater and faster
reduction in the remaining population than might be expected from simply the additive impacts
of the threats. “[H]abitat loss can cause some extinctions directly by removing all individuals
over a short period of time, but it can also be indirectly responsible for lagged extinctions by
facilitating invasions, improving hunter access, eliminating prey, altering biophysical conditions
and increasing inbreeding depression. Together, these interacting and self-reinforcing systematic
and stochastic processes play a dominant role in driving the dynamics of population trajectories
as extinction is approached.”163
The whale shark is already at risk as a low-fecundity or K-selected species, rendering it more
vulnerable to synergistic impacts of multiple threats. “Traits such as ecological specialization
and low population density act synergistically to elevate extinction risk above that expected from
their additive contributions, because rarity itself imparts higher risk and specialization reduces
the capacity of a species to adapt to habitat loss by shifting range or changing diet. Similarly,
interactions between environmental factors and intrinsic characteristics make large-bodied, long-
generation and low-fecundity species particularly predisposed to anthropogenic threats given
their lower replacement rates.”164
CONCLUSION
In 2000, the United States proposed that the whale shark be included in Appendix II of CITES.165
The U.S. further acknowledged their need for protection by prohibiting the fishing of whale
sharks in Atlantic U.S. waters under the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan and by
160
See IUCN 2005 at 6.
161
See Id.
162
Brook et al. 2008 at 457 (internal citations omitted).
163
Id. at 453 (internal citations omitted).
164
Id. at 455 (internal citations omitted).
165
CITES 2000, entire.
Petition to List the Whale Shark under the Endangered Species Act 22You can also read
